dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
25
share rss forum feed


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to 88615298

Re: So for semi-real internet in rual areas

said by 88615298:

one needs

Excede 35 GB tier $220
HomeFusion 30 GB tier $120
Verizon data only plan for USB dongle. 30 GB for $200

So 95 GB for "only" $540 a month. Meanwhile those that just live a few miles away can pay $50 for 250 GB and higher speeds. That's fucked up.

But the high price is what eventually drives wireline providers to cover and area...once the population (potential customer) density reaches X and the cost per person for bandwidth equals Y it becomes practical to overbuild the existing low rate telephone system (it's still an overbuild even if the same company replaces/upgrades copper pairs with coax or fiber)

Satellite is a temporary stopgap for low density or remote areas (yes it is still remote even a few miles out of town)

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
Yeah, but, in most areas, the wireline providers are the phone company and the cable company. The phone company would be in the best position to build out into these areas, since they already have copper there, but Verizon and AT&T are already pushing wireless specifically because it's more profitable to do so. It's in their best interests not to extend wired broadband into those areas, since it would cut into their wireless business. As for the cable companies, most of them seem content to service the areas they have, only expanding into an area once it's turned into a densely-populated suburb. I once had a friend whose apartment building was only partially served by Knology, who was overbuilding the incumbent cable company. And when I say partially served, I mean that their service stopped at the apartment across the hall from him, and they absolutely refused to cross the hallway to reach his place. Not a large exterior landing or breezeway, but an interior hall, and a narrow one at that. If that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by ISurfTooMuch:

If that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.

It could have been a legal aggrement with the building owner or only being allowed to "wrap" one side of a building. Hard to know without details.
As far as telcos pushing wireless, it's true it is easier, faster, cheaper and higher priced...which is part of the formula that will eventually make it worthwhile (profitable) for cable-other wrieline or other better technology to build out.
Cable companies very much want/need to build out into new markets IF they can see a positive return on it. existing markets are saturating on standard products (HSI,CATV ,VoIP) but nobody can afford to sink money into areas that will have a negetive return for the forseeable future weather it's low density or excess competition, or gov't price controls.
Any program that alters that balance temporarily (gov't incentive usually) may speed build outs, but will create other problems if the incentive ends before actual market forces reach the balance point. You can see the effect as Gov't begins to ease out of universal phone access leaving a telco plant that can't support operational costs let alone next gen upgrades.

It 'is time for gov't to consider how much cost shifting from profitable areas to unprofitable rural areas ratepayers can and will practially support over the VERY long term required to pay of newgen plants. and even more important does supporting current nextgen plant expandtion, potentially cripple upcoming possibly better solutions of 10's of years.